by Adi Ignatius
On January 4, I received a notice calling me to Deng’s home for a meeting. When I arrived around 10 A.M., Chen Yun, Wan Li, Yang Shangkun, Bo Yibo, Wang Zhen, and Peng Zhen were already there. After everyone had arrived, Deng pulled out a letter to show us.
It was Yaobang’s letter of resignation, addressed to Deng. The general idea of the letter was that he [Hu Yaobang] had not been cautious enough in his leadership, that he had done a lot of foolish things concerning domestic and international issues. But mainly he said that he had been weak in upholding the Four Cardinal Principles and the Anti-Liberalization Campaign, had been ambivalent in his attitude, and had therefore caused a flood of liberalization and become a protective shield for some villains. Since the mistakes he made were grave, he was asking permission to step down in order to review his thoughts and give a proper accounting to the Party.
After everyone in the meeting had read the letter, Deng said that the resignation should be accepted. Nobody expressed disagreement. Deng said that after Yaobang stepped down, Zhao Ziyang, Bo Yibo, Yang Shangkun, and Wan Li should be in charge of the affairs of the Politburo Standing Committee until the 13th Party Congress. I suggested that Hu Qili be included, since he was standing secretary of the Secretariat in charge of daily affairs. Deng agreed.
That became the Five-Person Group that I was in charge of, which took over the daily affairs of the Politburo Standing Committee until the 13th Party Congress. Deng said that soft methods could be used to deal with Yaobang’s affair. His membership on the Politburo Standing Committee could be retained so as to minimize the impact on domestic and international affairs. He also said that the Central Advisory Commission could call for a Party life meeting to conduct a criticism and correction of Yaobang, and then announce Yaobang’s resignation at an enlarged Politburo meeting rather than in a Central Committee plenum.
At the time, I thought that the reason for not holding a plenum was to reduce the shock and allow for softer measures, rather than out of concern that it might not pass. Of course, the measure was not in line with proper Party rules, but his intention was to resolve the matter while reducing the impact. After Deng spoke, no comrades voiced any differing opinion.
Chen Yun was more active than the others at this meeting. He seemed very attentive to organizational principles and proper procedure. He was afraid there would be comments, both domestic and international, about the acceptance of the General Secretary’s resignation at a Politburo meeting, so he made it a point to announce that it was legal and in line with proper procedures.
Deng himself never took such matters seriously. Of course, the way Yaobang’s case was handled, especially the criticism of him in the Central Advisory Commission’s Party life meeting, did trigger some domestic and international criticism that the change of leadership had involved illegitimate means.
During the meeting at Deng Xiaoping’s home, [Party elder] Li Xiannian was in Shanghai. After the meeting, Deng Xiaoping immediately sent Yang Shangkun to Shanghai to inform him and ask his opinion. After Yang Shangkun briefed Li Xiannian on what had happened, Li, of course, wholeheartedly agreed with the outcome; it was like a dream come true. He said to Yang, “I’ve known all along that this guy was no good!”
He also suggested that Hu was silver-tongued and full of tricks. Li said that when Yaobang recently came to Shanghai, Li requested to meet with Yaobang, who had the nerve to refuse him. Li continued to vent his anger toward Hu. He also agreed with the move to make me Acting General Secretary, but told Yang Shangkun, “Ziyang has learned too much foreign stuff. Continuing in this is unacceptable. You should tell him that.”
On January 7, 1987, Bo Yibo, Yang Shangkun, Wan Li, Hu Qili, and I held our first Five-Person Group meeting to discuss the specifics of the Party life meeting. We made the decision to conduct the meeting in as moderate a tone as possible.
At the time, Peng Zhen, Bo Yibo, and other elders wanted to accuse Hu of having promoted a “clique” of cadres, the so-called “Youth League Faction.”* I felt that this was not advisable, that the consequences would be serious and lead to a widespread sense of insecurity, repeating the pattern of implicating people by association. After I raised my concerns, everyone expressed their consent, so we agreed not to raise the issue of the “Youth League Faction” and “clique of cadres.”
The night before the Party life meeting, I went to Yaobang’s home to tell him how the meeting would be conducted. I also told him how the discussion went at Deng’s house and that his membership on the Politburo Standing Committee would be retained.
I also raised some questions. I said, “Deng gave you several messages on the issue of anti-liberalism. Why didn’t you take this seriously? Were you intentionally keeping your distance from Deng?” He said that that had never occurred to him.
I also said, “After your resignation is made public, it is possible that some people will make trouble in the name of supporting you.” I truly anticipated that such things could happen, so I wanted him to be aware of this and be prepared for it.
He replied that he would resolutely stand by the Party. Later, at the Party life meeting, I reported everything that we had said in this conversation.
The Party life meeting was held on January 10 under the name of the Central Advisory Commission. Bo Yibo chaired the meeting, which took place over six consecutive mornings (including one session that lasted the entire day). Participants included the members of the Standing Committee of the Central Advisory Commission, Politburo members, secretaries of the Secretariat, State Council members, the vice chairman of the Party Committee of the NPC, the vice president of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, various department heads of the Central Military Commission, and various department heads under the Central Committee. Deng Xiaoping and Chen Yun did not participate. Li Xiannian was in Shanghai.
Deng Liqun delivered a long speech systematically criticizing Yaobang for not heeding Deng Xiaoping’s directions, and for being lax about or even encouraging bourgeois liberalization over a long period of time. Other speeches followed the traditional pattern of the Party, taking different angles from which to criticize Hu. [Second Secretary of the Central Discipline Inspection Commission] Wang Heshou revealed in the meeting that when he went to Hu’s home to see him, Yaobang was very upset and had complained that some Party elders were preparing to attack him. The intention had been to conduct this meeting in a moderate fashion, but when Wang Heshou spoke, the atmosphere became more tense. We immediately warned Wang Heshou not to continue on about this. Fortunately, while he was talking, some of the Party elders were not there.
The most surprising statement at the meeting was from [influential military veteran] Yu Qiuli. Yaobang and Yu Qiuli had been very close in those years. In preparations for the 12th Party Congress, Hu Yaobang had put Yu Qiuli in charge of rearranging the leadership positions. Back then, I was in the State Council and did not handle such matters. I did not know why Yu Qiuli should be put in charge of making the leadership arrangements for the 12th Party Congress, but it indicated his [Hu’s] trust in Yu Qiuli. In those years, not only did Yaobang visit border regions and inspect troops with Yu Qiuli, but because Yu was in the army and was the director of the General Political Department, they also visited factories and oil fields together. During Secretariat meetings, Yaobang often asked for Yu Qiuli’s opinion on economic issues, then praised his views. Perhaps Hu had trouble getting support on economic issues; Yu’s views were in line with his, so he was using Yu Qiuli’s remarks as a way to express his own opinion, or to gain consensus. Their relationship had been quite intimate.
However, at the Party life meeting, Yu Qiuli unexpectedly delivered a harsh speech against Yaobang. He had collected Yaobang’s remarks on whether Deng and Party elders would retire, and asked Yaobang in an accusatory tone, “What was your motive? Why did you say that?”
Yu Qiuli thus revealed himself to be a man who ordinarily appeared to be honest, but at the critical moment engaged in backstabbing
to protect himself. It was a singular exposure of his true nature. Perhaps he felt that the two of them had had a close relationship, so if Deng had decided to part with Yaobang and remove him from office, if he [Yu] were seen to be close to Yaobang, perhaps he would also be implicated. So he wanted to take the opportunity to extricate himself.
At the end of the Party life meeting, Yaobang gave a self-criticism speech, admitting to having made serious political mistakes. Toward the end of his talk, he became extremely emotional, weeping openly.
At the enlarged Politburo meeting, on January 16, Yaobang’s resignation was passed by a show of hands. I was appointed Acting General Secretary. Even though I had repeated on various occasions that in the age group between sixty and seventy, Hu Yaobang was the only one suited to be General Secretary, on both January 4, at the meeting in Deng’s home, and at the enlarged Politburo meeting, I did not oppose the decision to accept Yaobang’s resignation, but only made the remark that I was not suited for the position of Acting General Secretary and hoped a more appropriate person would be found soon. I did not refuse.
The reasons for this were, first, that the matter had already been decided by Deng and other Party elders in the summer of 1986. Though I did not participate in the decision, I had heard about it, and as I mentioned before, Deng had spoken with Yaobang, and Yaobang had agreed—even though he didn’t know the true reason Deng was having him removed from his position. In other words, Hu was eventually going to step down, only it happened a few months earlier than it would have.
The second reason is that after Deng made his remarks about the student demonstrations on December 30, Yaobang had been unable to continue working. As I mentioned before, after the summer of 1986 it became difficult for Yaobang to manage the work of the Central Committee. Many Party elders no longer paid him any heed. Many of his suggestions failed to win support, especially after Deng attributed the student unrest to bourgeois liberalization and blamed him for not expelling so-and-so from the Party after he’d asked him to. The speech had been transcribed and distributed to a circle of officials. Since it was difficult for Yaobang to lead, he was left with no choice but to resign.
Another point is that in Yaobang’s case, Hu Qili had also been affected [because he was a close associate of Hu Yaobang (no relation)]. Having Hu Qili join the Five-Person Group would keep him from being implicated, which was the best scenario under the circumstances. It was impossible to have Qili succeed Yaobang. It was difficult to find a suitable candidate on such short notice. Under the circumstances, it was neither easy nor appropriate for me to refuse to accept the role of Acting General Secretary.
There has been public hearsay accusing me of writing a letter to Deng Xiaoping bringing charges against and making malicious remarks about Yaobang. Some even say that I urged Deng Xiaoping to finish him off. There is no truth to this at all. In 1984, I wrote to Deng Xiaoping once about perfecting the system of the central leadership; that is, how to really establish democratic centralism within the Central Committee, especially within the Politburo and its Standing Committee. A copy of the letter was sent to Comrade Chen Yun. It had nothing to do with Yaobang whatsoever. The contents of the letter are as follows:
Comrade Xiaoping:
I am forwarding to you a copy of a suggestion from Comrade Chen Junsheng [the Party secretary] of Heilongjiang Province. Please read it for reference.
Though his suggestion would not necessarily tackle the fundamental problems, he does raise the extremely important issue of how to preserve long-term peace and good governance in our country.
Currently, various aspects of the situation are improving and seem certain to continue on this trend. However, this does not mean the issue of long-term peace and good governance has been fundamentally resolved. Maintaining the stability of the fundamental laws of the nation is certainly one aspect; however, since we are a socialist state under the leadership of the Communist Party, I am concerned that it is not enough to consider the issue only from the point of view of the constitution. I believe that fundamentally and most importantly, we must tackle the system of the Party leadership. Only by doing so can the problem be truly resolved.
With both you and Comrade Chen Yun still energetic and in good health, and with major and fundamental policies already set down, various tasks have been steered onto the right tracks under your guidance and because of your decisions. The current period is no doubt one of the best in our Party’s history. Precisely because of this, I sincerely hope that you will put more energy and concentration on resolving this major and important issue that will affect our Party and our country for generations to come: that is, to establish a much-needed system of leadership for our Party and then to personally inspect and seek compliance so as to make it a custom and culture that will not shift according to the changing of individuals, so it will pass on through the generations.
Please take my suggestion into consideration.
I herewith offer my salute!
Zhao Ziyang
It was May 26, 1984, before a visit to Europe.
This was the only letter I sent to the Central Committee or Deng Xiaoping in reference to the issue of the central leadership. I wrote the letter and sent it together with Chen Junsheng’s suggestion.
The reason for the letter was that during the years just after the Gang of Four* had been smashed, while the central leadership was reviewing the atrocity of the Cultural Revolution, we had often discussed how such a tragedy could be prevented from happening again. We saw a need to resolve issues of our Party’s system of leadership to prevent concentration of power in, and arbitrary use of power by, a single person.
However, after the 12th Party Congress, because both domestic and international conditions were good and were improving, the discussions about these issues dwindled. But even though we had proceeded with reform—our economy had grown rapidly, people’s living standards had improved, and our democratic culture had strengthened within the central leadership—the problem of the system of leadership, whether in the plenum, the Politburo, or the Politburo Standing Committee, had not been resolved. They all remained more or less as before.
As a result, I felt it was necessary to raise the issue again. If the matter were not resolved while conditions were relatively good, it would still be difficult to guarantee that there would be no problems with future leaders.
My letter was written from that perspective, and was not in reference to any specific leader. I did not feel that there was any major problem with the leadership. The situation was relatively good. However, current good conditions did not guarantee future good conditions, since the systemic issue had not been resolved. I wasn’t referring to any problems in the leadership, nor was I pointing to Yaobang or any other leaders.
The letter was not meant to imply that because there was an issue with Yaobang, the system of leadership was being raised. However, it also did not mean to imply that because Yaobang was relatively enlightened, there was no need to improve the system of the central leadership.
Yaobang was amiable and open-minded and was able to listen to different opinions. He was very generous to people and did not like giving people a hard time. People could argue with him and even quarrel with him. I have said many times, just because he was open-minded by nature did not mean that we did not still have to consider the issue of the system of leadership. Since he was already seventy years old, after the Party elders were gone, who knows how long he would be able to lead?
In my speech at the Party life meeting, I said that we must rely on a system, not on individuals, since people could change. Without a good system, even great leaders such as Stalin and Chairman Mao had problems. I mentioned my letter to Xiaoping without explaining the contents of the letter. Moreover, my criticisms of Yaobang also touched upon the obeying of the rules of democratic centralism and Party discipline. Therefore, it is possible that my comments about Yaobang were interpreted as having also been the contents of the letter. This is probably how the
rumor spread.
There was another rumor, which was not as widespread. I heard it much later. Yaobang had often spoken about the issue of Party elders possibly retiring before the 13th Party Congress. So there was a rumor that Deng Xiaoping once said in front of Yaobang and me that he would retire at the 13th Party Congress. Hu Yaobang purportedly responded that he would “lift both hands to approve,” while I replied, “You cannot retire, absolutely not!” This incident supposedly made Deng feel that Yaobang was up to no good. This is an entirely fictitious story.
Before Yaobang stepped down, Deng had never expressed in front of me, let alone in front of Yaobang and me, whether he would retire. The first time I heard of Deng saying he would resign from the Politburo Standing Committee and as chairman of the Central Advisory Commission was after the summer of 1986, when Yaobang told me about his talk with Deng. There was no occasion where Deng asked both of us for our opinions.
I indeed asked Deng to retain his official position, asking him not to resign from the Politburo Standing Committee. That was in 1987, after Yaobang had stepped down and I was already Acting General Secretary. Since Deng was still going to be in charge, I preferred that he do so from within the Party Standing Committee.
There is one other event worth mentioning. At a Politburo Standing Committee meeting in March or April 1983, Comrade Chen Yun’s criticism of Yaobang caused a small disturbance. Even though this incident had nothing to do with Yaobang’s resignation in 1987, rumors about the incident spread, some of which involved me.
At that meeting, the main agenda was to report to Deng and the Politburo Standing Committee about work on the economy. Deng Xiaoping felt at that time that annual target levels had been set too low for two consecutive years. The result was a huge overshooting of the target, which Deng disapproved of. But the comrades on the Planning Commission and I all felt that there would be no benefit at all to setting the target too high. It was better to have room to maneuver. The report was meant to explain our reasons clearly.